New central issue in American politics? EITHER, OR: IS IT CHILDREN OR ELDERLY?

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Insuring children may squeeze seniors
Congress debates cutting payments to Medicare managed-care plans to help provide coverage for millions of children.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer
March 26, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Democratic Congress, eager to do something that would be popular with voters, is moving to provide healthcare coverage to millions of uninsured children this year, but there's a catch: Senior citizens enrolled in a popular Medicare program may have to help pay the bill.

That could turn what started as a feel-good plan to help the children of the working poor into a tricky exercise in shifting generational burdens. Such trade-offs may soon become a central theme of American politics, experts say, because the federal deficit is large and the bills for supporting baby boomers in retirement are about to start coming due.

"The budget squeeze is on, and in some ways this is the first salvo," said Adam Carasso, an analyst at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy research group in Washington. "It's getting to the point where you are going to have to ask the dreaded question: Is it children or the elderly?"

He added, "The way we have allocated our spending, it's coming down to an either-or proposition."

Lawmakers want to provide coverage to as many as 6 million of an estimated 9 million uninsured children, by increasing federal spending as much as $60 billion over the next five years. But budget rules designed to curb the deficit require new expenditures to be offset by tax increases or cuts in programs.

To help meet the cost, Congress is considering trimming payments to Medicare managed-care plans. The privately run alternatives to traditional programs serve about 8 million senior citizens, including those in health maintenance organizations. If funding is reduced, the plans may cut dental, vision and other benefits....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-kids26mar26,0,7048426,full.story

[Warpy]

1. Oh, BOLLOCKS

When is it going to be the fucking PENTAGON???

I'm sick to death of the government starving the people to fatten the military!

Do you have any idea what we could do if the Pentagon were put on a diet to keep it in line with the GDP% the rest of the world uses?

[SharonAnn]

8. Or corporate subsidies? Or other no-bid contracts? or, etc.

[robinlynne]

2. how about we stop taking such good care of exxonmobil...

[YOY]

3. Neither, it's Lockheed Martin

I guess we don't really need a new submarine/fighter jet/destroyer that goddamn much.

[ShortnFiery]

4. We wouldn't have to decide if we STOPPED ...

pissing away BILLIONS each week of our tax dollars to War Profiteers and their ilk.

Waging TWO "occupations of choice" will dry up all our government finances so that NO ONE but Corporations within the Military Industrial Complex will continue to benefit from Government funds. :grr: :thumbsdown:

RETURN our TAX DOLLARS back to serving the PUBLIC GOOD.

End this bogus war on "a tactic" ... end the occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq. THEN we will have tax dollars for the elderly, the children and public works (highways, schools, parks, etc.)

[yardwork]

5. What everyone else just said!

[LeftishBrit]

6. What about both?

And saving some money by not going into unnecessary wars.

[Vincardog]

7. Why not just cut the war budget in half and spend he money on the people?

We could be the fattest healthiest welfare state in the world and cut taxes.

If we took just half what we now spend on killing and the military industrial complex; We could give health care to EVERYONE, Free Quality education to EVERYONE, and guarantee a livable income to EVERYONE.

The only hitch would be there would be one less TRILLIONAIRE in the world.
I am willing to sacrifice it.